Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.02 seconds)Article 363 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 295 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagavadas Krishnadas And Anr. vs P.S. Soma Iyer And Ors. on 19 August, 1968
In the instant case, Shri Lodha, counsel for the plaintiff has invited my attention to the case of Bhagavada v. PS. Soma Iyer . In the said case, their Lordships were considering the case of the purchaser in an auction sale. The property vests in the auction purchaser and the sale becomes absolute from the time it was sold. Vesting of property is made to relate back to the date of sale. The plaintiff in the instant case has put up the case that under the terms of the Covenant Ex. A/5, the defendants were allowed to continue in occupation so long as it is required by the defendant. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not come with the case that he has allowed the State of Rajasthan to continue in occupation for the use as educational institution. In the instant case, there is no privity of contract between the parties and whatever was a contract or a covenant it was with the Union of India and the ex-ruler of the erstwhile State of Alwar.
Colonel His Highness Sawai Tej Singhji, ... vs The Union Of India & Anr on 6 October, 1978
He further sumbits that even in a case like the City Palace building where there is a condition that the property should be released in favour of the erstwhile ruler. The provisions of Article 363 of the Constitution of India have been applied. Mr. Khan has submitted before me that an appeal was preferred by His Highness Maharaja Shri Tejsinghji of Alwar against the Union of India and another. His appeal has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Sawai Tej Singhji v. Union of India . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Article 363 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of all courts in any dispute arising out of any agreement which was entered into or executed before ? he commencement of the Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State to which the Government of India was party. Their Lordships further held that the operation of the article is not limited to any "Parent Covenant and every agreement whether it is primary or one entered into in pursuance of the provisions of a preceding agreement would fall within the ambit of the article.
Section 22 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bhikhraj Jaipuria vs State Of Bihar on 28 July, 1964
In Bhikhraj v. The State of Bihar , their Lordship of the Patna High Court were considering the provisions of Section 70. Their Lordship held that a thing may be delivered in pursuance of a contract and if will have to be governed by the terms of that contract.